It has nothing to do with Struts, the error message is saying that commons BeanUtils cannot convert the string from the form submit into a BigDecimal. Turns out that your issue is BigDecimal is not as permissive as Double when it converts a non-numeric string to a BigDecimal. If a string is not a number, Double converts it to 0.0, but BigDecimal will throw an exception, even for an empty string.
Struts copies screen fields to formbean fields in RequestUtils.populate() before it does anything else including validation. So, even though there's not a value in the field (actually *because* there's no numeric value!) populate() re-throws the exception that you are seeing. To get it to work you could create and register a custom converter that will do some checking on the string before it passes it to the BigDecimal(String) constructor. You will need a class that extends org.apache.commons.beanutils.converters.BigDecimalConverter, and register your custom converter by calling ConvertUtils.register(new <your class>(), BigDecimlal.class); Or, you could instead use an alternate approach that many (me included) recommend, of having all formbean fields be Strings. You would have a String display field and a second field that is a non-string, and have this populated by your action after validation succeeds. -ed On 3/1/07, Gundersen, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Has anyone had problems with BigDecimal and DynaValidatorForms? I've got a form with two fields (advisorFee and grossIncome) defined as java.lang.Double. I want to change them to java.math.BigDecimal because they are money fields. If I change advisorFee to BigDecimal, the validation fails when I enter a value into grossIncome, even though this is still a Double. This is the error I get: javax.servlet.ServletException: BeanUtils.populate org.apache.struts.util.RequestUtils.populate(RequestUtils.java:453) [Caused by]... org.apache.commons.beanutils.ConversionException org.apache.commons.beanutils.converters.BigDecimalConverter.convert(BigD ecimalConverter.java:117) This doesn't make any sense to me. Is it possible that it's a bug in 1.3.5? Why should changing the definition of one field change the behaviour of another (they are not linked in any way e.g. in the validation rules) Regards Richard Gundersen Java Developer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 01618302398 Fax: 01618342536 London Scottish Bank plc 24 Mount Street Manchester M2 3LS
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
